Governing Urban Diversity: Creating Social Cohesion, Social Mobility and Economic Performance in Todays

Hyper-diversified Cities

Urban Policies on Diversity in Rotterdam, The Netherlands

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Work package 4:

Assessment of Urban Policies

Deliverable nr.:

D 4.1

Lead partner:

Partner 6 (UCL)

Authors:

Anouk Tersteeg, Ronald van Kempen, Gideon Bolt

Nature:

Report

Dissemination level: PP
Status:

Final version

Date:

4 August 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This project is funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme;
Theme: SSH.2012.2.2.2-1; Governance of cohesion and diversity in urban contexts
Grant agreement: 319970

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

To be cited as: Tersteeg, A.K., R. van Kempen & G.S. Bolt (2013), Urban Policies on Diversity in Rotterdam,
The Netherlands. Utrecht: Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University.
This report has been put together by the authors, and revised on the basis of the valuable comments, suggestions,
and contributions of all DIVERCITIES partners.
The views expressed in this report are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
European Commission.

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Contents
1.

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 4

2.

Overview of political system and governance structure for diversity in Rotterdam ................ 4
2.1 The political system and governance structure for urban diversity policy ........................................................ 4
2.2 Key shifts in national approaches to policy over migration, citizenship and diversity...................................... 7

3.

Policy strategies on diversity in Rotterdam ................................................................................... 10

3.1 Dominant governmental discourses of urban policy and diversity ................................................................ 12
3.2 Non-governmental views on diversity policy ............................................................................................... 27

4.

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 30

References.................................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix I. List of policy actors interviewed ........................................................................................ 35
Appendix II. List of policy documents analysed ................................................................................... 36
Appendix III. Analysis of policy documents ......................................................................................... 37

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

1. Introduction
This report examines the current approaches in policies with respect to diversity for the city of
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. As a background, we first provide an overview of the national
political system and the governance structure for diversity in Rotterdam. We examine which
actors - both governmental and non-governmental and at multiple levels of scale - are involved in
the governance of diversity in Rotterdam. In addition, we give a short outline of key shifts in
national policy discourses on diversity, citizenship and in-migration since the 1980s. Second, we
analyse dominant governmental discourses on urban policy and diversity. Therefore, we examine
how diversity is addressed in the most significant documents that deal with diversity in
Rotterdam. On the basis of qualitative interviews, we also examine how governmental policy
actors in the city understand the policies. Third, we also examine non-governmental views on
diversity policy. Amongst others, we identify the importance of diversity as a policy issue, and the
meaning, objectives and targets of the relevant policies, in different important fields, such as
integration, housing, education, and work.
We find that present policy in Rotterdam pays little attention to diversity, that diversity is mostly
understood as a matter of ethnicity, and that it is seen as a problem rather than an asset. Several
policy actors have expressed their concern about the mainstream1 nature of the local policies
pursued by the municipality as they believe that it runs the risk of overlooking the specific needs
of vulnerable social groups. Several examined policies were found to be rooted in an
assimilationalist discourse: the policies are aimed at all Rotterdammers but an extra effort is asked
from newcomers to the city and those belonging to what the municipality calls in its report on
integration (Municipality of Rotterdam, 2011, p. 2) the slow city2 to catch up with the
mainstream which seems to be the existing residents in the fast city. When diversity is discussed
as an asset it is seen as an economic quality. Improving social mobility of residents is often used as a
tool to generate such economic success. Policy pays little attention to social cohesion, let alone to
facilitating encounters between diverse groups. Several policy actors have expressed their
disappointment with the absence of a discussion on how to deal with diversity socially and speak
of a taboo. The findings should be understood in the light of discourse shifts on the matter of
diversity in Rotterdam and in national policies from pluralism and integrationism at the end of
the 1990s to assimilationism today.

2. Overview of political system and governance structure for diversity in

Rotterdam
2.1 The political system and governance structure for urban diversity policy
The Dutch three-tier government structure
The Netherlands is administered by three levels of government: the central government; twelve
provinces; and 408 municipalities. In addition, several municipalities form metropolitan regions.
Rotterdam is part of the province of South Holland and three urban regions in the Netherlands:
the Randstad (a conurbation of urban agglomerations), the Metropolitan region Rotterdam-The
Hague and the Urban Region Rotterdam (comprising 15 municipalities, including Rotterdam).
By mainstream policy we mean that a policy is meant to target all citizens in the city rather than a specific group.
In the policy document Doing More: Rotterdammers in Action. Integration Strategy the fast city is defined as the city of the successful
entrepreneurs, the cultural sector, the high educated, ICT, design, and the advanced harbour industry, while the slow city is the
city of poverty and stagnation, of the beneficiaries, the low educated, and the isolated population groups.
1
2

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

The central government sets out a policy framework that other government bodies abide to. It
also collects and redistributes the state budgets (Korthals Altes, 2002). Through special purpose
grants the central government can control municipal policy strategies (Ta an-Kok, 2010).
Nevertheless, the central government devolves the implementation of significant parts of its
policy agenda to municipalities. Based on the policy agenda of the central government, the
national ministries develop a policy framework for the provinces and municipalities. In the case
of Rotterdam, the provinces and metropolitan region are not significantly involved in the
governance of urban diversity. The latter is a concern of the municipality. Social policy
development, implementation and finance are increasingly being devolved to municipalities
(URBED & Van Hoek, 2008).
Government in the city of Rotterdam
In Dutch cities, and also in Rotterdam, the mayor and vice-mayors form the main executive
body. In the Netherlands, the mayor is not elected, but appointed by the government. The mayor
is chairing the council of mayor and vice-mayors, who are recruited from the parties of the ruling
coalition. This council is complemented and monitored by the city council. The mayor is
responsible for public order and safety. The vice-mayors are accountable for all other policy
matters (URBED & Van Hoek, 2009), including citizenship, citizen participation, education,
housing, urban planning, and work and income. Rotterdam is divided into 14 municipal districts.
Based on the policy agenda of ruling parties, the municipal departments set out a policy
framework for the municipal districts, which in turn gives substance to e.g. policies on urban
diversity.
It should be noted that this governance model in Rotterdam will change as of 2014. At the start
of 2013, a national government bill was passed that abolishes city districts arguing that they have
developed an undesirable level of autonomy (Eerste Kamer, n.d). In response, Rotterdam will
change its districts into area committees as of 2014. Although the latter will cover the same
geographical areas, they differ from the former in at least two significant ways. First, while the
district governments were composed of civil servants, in area committees ordinary citizens can
become members as well. Second, the coordination and implementation of policies at the district
level will be scaled up to the municipal level. While districts are responsible for the
implementation of various policies, area committees will develop policy under the guidance of the
municipal departments. The committees will develop an Area Plan that they call Doelen
Inspanningen Netwerk (Targets Efforts Network). The municipal departments will coordinate
(local) urban policy and will have the final decision-making power.
The role of non-governmental actors in the governance of Rotterdam
The municipality of Rotterdam traditionally maintains warm relationships with non-governmental
actors. At present, governing the city through public-private partnerships is the official policy
strategy of the municipality. For policies on matters of diversity, the elected city government sets out
a general policy agenda on the base of which municipal departments (as of 2014 area committees)
develop policy. During this process the departments can (but are not obliged to) consult nongovernmental stakeholders (e.g. foundations, community organisations, and researchers). The
degree to which policy is developed interactively differs for each department and policy
document. As of 2014, the area committees will be largely responsible for the implementation of
urban policy. Like the districts, the area committees will work in a network of local governmental
and non-governmental actors such as the police, schools, housing associations, and local
businesses.

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Key actors in Dutch urban diversity policy

Relevant government actors
Diversity is not a theme that is named as such in Dutch national policy. However, it is indirectly
addressed in the policy agendas of various Ministries (see Figure 1). Before 2013, the Ministry of
Internal Affairs was the most important actor regarding migration, citizenship and diversity. It
was responsible for both the social management as well as the spatial planning for diversity. It
developed policy frameworks and funded policy programmes on integration and good
citizenship. Also, it administered the Common Integrated Approach Programme (CIAP), which aimed
to tune the integration approaches of the central government and municipalities. As for the
spatial dimension, the ministry developed policy on access to housing, and the social and
economic wellbeing of neighbourhoods. As of 2013, the social domain has shifted to the Ministry
of Social Affairs. The spatial domain remains the responsibility of Internal Affairs. Since 2010, the
national government is cutting back heavily on subsidies for organisations that represent (ethnic)
minority groups at the national level, and subsidies for integration programmes at the national
and local level (National Government Budget, 2014). A national naturalisation programme
remains, as well as subsidies for municipalities to establish facilities that counter discrimination
and encourage the emancipation of homosexuals and women.
Although Rotterdam has participated in CIAP, diversity is not mentioned frequently in its urban
policy. Diversity is indirectly addressed in the working fields of various municipal departments
(Figure 1). The Department of Social Affairs is an important actor for diversity policy and
discourses in Rotterdam. It develops and coordinates policy on citizenship and integration.
Relevant non-governmental actors
The Netherlands is home to more than 1500 migrant organisations that vary in size, age, target
groups, and activities (Van Heelsum, 2004). An important institution representing the interests of
ethnic minorities is the research and knowledge centre FORUM Institute for Multicultural Issues.
Until 2013, FORUM for instance directed CIAP together with the Ministry of Internal Affairs. At
the regional level, RADAR research, advice and knowledge institute operating against
discrimination is a key player.
Rotterdam is home to multiple organisations that represent the interests of migrants. An
influential one is the Platform Foreigners Rotterdam, an umbrella organisation for 55 migrant
self-organisations. Although, recently, the number and power of these organisations is declining
significantly due to reductions in municipal subsidies. In 2012, the Rotterdam municipality
created four knowledge centres: one with a focus on diversity, the others on emancipation of women,
the emancipation of homosexuals, and the anti-discrimination. These centres act as umbrella
organisations for the multitude of organisations on these topics in the city. The knowledge
centres collaborate with various non-governmental and governmental actors to collect and share
knowledge on these four topics.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the key governmental and non-governmental actors at multiple
levels of scale and their relations in the governance of diversity in Rotterdam.

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Figure 1. Map of key actors in the governance of diversity in Rotterdam

GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ACTORS

National government

National level

Ministry of Social Affairs and

Employment:
(Integration, participation,
citizenship & ethnic minorities)

Ministry of Justice and

Security:
(Legal matters diversity &
citizenship)

Ministry of Internal Affairs:

(Housing & Neighbourhoods)

Ministry of Education, Culture

and Science:
(Education & Emancipation)

Consultancy, Knowledge and

Research Centres, Foundations, &
other advirsory organisations

Police
City level

Municipality of Rotterdam
City Council

Mayor & Aldermen

Department of security

Department of Work and

Income (Social services &
economic participation)

Department of research and

business intelligence

Executive Board

Department of Social Affairs

(Citizenship, Integration,
Education, & Health Care)

Consultancy, Knowledge and

Research Centres, Foundations, and
other advirsory organisations

Department of Urban
Development :
(Housing & Neighbourhoods)

District level
Partnership for Rotterdam Zuid:
> National Programmae
Rotterdam South

Districts / Area committees

Neighbourhood
level

Neighbourhood Network: Districts; Neighbourhood Police; Area Director; Area Manager; Special Urban Servant; Cleaning Services

LEGENDA
A directs/funds B
A advises B
A and B advise one another

Housing Associations

Neighbourhood Network: Welfare

Organisations; Housing Associations;
Schools; Resident Organisations and
Platforms; Entrepreneurs; Other
Social Foundations and Institutions

2.2 Key shifts in national approaches to policy over migration, citizenship and
diversity
In the Dutch national policy context, the concept of diversity is related to matters of citizenship,
in-migration and ethnic minorities. Based on studies of Bruquetas-Callejo et al. (2011); Schinkel,
(2007; 2008); Scholten (2007; 2011); Van der Brug et al. (2009); and Vasta (2007) on the
construction and evolution of Dutch policy discourses on these themes, this chapter gives a brief
overview of key discourse shifts in national diversity and integration policy since the 1980s. To
provide a background, a brief overview is given of the Dutch post-war immigration history first.
Post-war immigration trends in the Netherlands
Just after the Second World War, the Dutch government stated that the Netherlands should not
be a country of immigration. In the 1950s, the government even stimulated emigration.
Nevertheless, between the 1960s and 2004 immigration flows have constantly exceeded
emigration flows in the Netherlands (Nicolaas & Sprangers, 2006). From the Second World War
until well into the 1990s, people from the former colonies - the Dutch-Indies, Moluccan Islands,
Surinam, Aruba, and the Antilles - migrated to the Netherlands. In the 1960s and 1970s, the
7

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

government recruited guest workers from Southern European countries and (later) Turkey and
Morocco. While the Southern Europeans mostly returned to their home countries, the Turks and
Moroccans mostly settled in the Netherlands. From the 1970s onwards, Turkish and Moroccan
migrants arrived in the context of family reunion and formation, albeit the numbers have been
declining somewhat in the last decade. Since the 1980s, the Netherlands has experienced an
inflow of refugees from e.g. Vietnam, the Horn of Africa, and the Middle East. Recently, there
has been an inflow of migrants from Western countries, including Middle- and Eastern European
countries, such as Poland, Rumania and Bulgaria.
National policy discourses on immigration and integration since the 1980s
The construction of the first Dutch integration policy in the late 1970s
Before the 1970s, the Netherlands had no policy for newcomers let alone integration policy.
Migrants were seen as transient and they were not regarded full citizens. A few guest worker policies
facilitated temporary accommodation and return services. The absence of equal rights compared
to native citizens differentiated them from society (Scholten, 2007). Various researchers including
Van der Brug et al. (2009) and Vasta (2007) understand this differentialist model of integration
through the Dutch tradition of Pillarism that entails the formation of separate group identities
Catholic and Protestant - and the emancipation within detached groups.
In the late 1970s, social tensions (e.g. reflected in riots in Rotterdam) as well as appeals of
scientists such as Han Entzinger (1975) raised awareness of the fact that immigration was not as
temporary as until then the state had thought. A report of the Scientific Council for Government
Policy (WRR) Ethnic Minorities (1979) catalysed the first integration policy in the Netherlands: the
Ethnic Minorities Policy of 1983 (Scholten, 2011). This policy called for the recognition of the
permanent stay of migrant groups and more comprehensive measures to accommodate these
groups.
Pluralism in the 1980s
The Ethnic Minorities Policy in the 1980s was pluralist in nature. Its rationale was that cultural
minority groups with a low socio-economic status should receive special attention from the state
to prevent their marginalisation. Thus, individual migrant groups such as the Surinamese, and
Moroccan were first named under the common denominator ethnic minorities (Scholten, 2007).
Ethnic minorities were granted active and passive voting rights (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2011).
Ethnic minorities were allowed to maintain their own cultural practices. Developing a distinctive
cultural identity was thought to stimulate socio-economic emancipation.
The Ethnic Minorities Policy initiated a wide range of policy initiatives in multiple domains,
including anti-discrimination law and voting rights for immigrants in the legal domain; policy for
housing and education, and reducing unemployment rates among migrants in the socio-economic
domain; and funding for cultural institutions to preserve migrant cultures, religions, and language
in the cultural domain (e.g. Vasta, 2007). The Ministry of Internal Affairs coordinated the policy.
At the end of the 1980s, the Ethnic Minorities Policy was heavily criticised both in public debates
and by researchers. The 1989 advisory report of the WRR played a key role in facilitating the shift
in Dutch integration policy towards socio-economic integration in the 1990s (Bruquetas-Callejo et
al., 2011). The WRR argued that under the Ethnic Minorities Policy too little progress was made
in labour market participation and educational performances of ethnic minorities. Also, a public
speech of Frits Bolkestein, leader of the Liberal Party, on the dangers of Islam for the integration
of migrants in society is thought to have played an influential role. The Dutch government held

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

on to the idea that immigration was temporary. Laws were developed to prevent further
immigration.
Integration in the 1990s and the rise of area-based policies
In 1994, the integrationist policy Contourennota Integration Policy Ethnic Minorities was launched. It was
different from the previous policy in at least three ways: it no longer focused on groups but on
individuals; it emphasised the individual civic responsibility of migrants to participate in society;
and it no longer focused on socio-cultural but on socio-economic participation (BruquetasCallejo et al., 2011). Ethnic minorities were no longer mentioned as the target of the policy. Still,
general measures, e.g. to enhance labour market participation, were hoped to reach ethnic
minorities. Under this policy framework, the Dutch Integration Law was launched in 1998. Under
this law, civic integration courses (e.g. language courses) first initiated by local governments were introduced to enhance the socio-economic compatibility of newcomers (Scholten, 2007).
In addition, in the 1990s, integration policies first took the form of area-based policies rather
than group-based policies. Precipitated by the four largest cities in the Netherlands (including
Rotterdam) a Big Cities Policy was launched in 1994 that aimed to tackle the complexity of spatial,
social and economic problems that are characteristic for many large cities. These problems
included segregation, poor housing, poverty and unemployment (Van Kempen, 2000). Next to
the Big Cities Policy various policy programmes were launched for deprived neighbourhoods in
the 1990s and 2000s, such as the Powerful Neighbourhoods (Krachtwijken) programme. These
policies share an area-based approach and integrated measures including social, economic and
physical restructuring. Accommodating and reflecting the shift from group-based to area-based
policies in the 1990s, a Minister for Urban Policy was appointed in the Ministry of Internal
Affairs in 1998. As the target neighbourhoods of area-based policy programmes often consist of
high concentrations of groups with a low socio-economic status and ethnic minority groups,
Bruquetas-Callejo et al. (2011) amongst others argue that they are essentially integration policies
as well.
A complex of events at the turn of the millennium, including a publication of a newspaper article
by Paul Scheffer (2000) on the failure of the multicultural society, the growing popularity of the
populist politician Pim Fortuyn, and several violent acts committed by migrants including the
murder of film producer Theo van Gogh, contributed to a sense policy failure with respect to
integration (Bruquetas-Callejo, 2011). In 2004, a parliamentary research committee was installed
to examine this apparent policy failure. It concluded that integration actually had been relatively
successful (Blok Committee, 2004). Policy makers found this unsatisfactory and decided to
develop stricter integration policies anyway.
Assimilation tendencies in the 2000s
The disappointment with integrationist policy evolved into the 2002 policy Integration New Style
that builds on policy in the 1990s in terms of its expectations of self-responsibility and good
citizenship of migrants. Yet, different from the previous policy, Integration New Style moves
away from mere socio-economic integration towards a focus on bridging socio-cultural distances
between migrants and mainstream society. Newcomers were expected to adjust to the
mainstream Dutch culture, reflecting an assimilation discourse. Integration has become a substitute
for being a (good) citizen (Schinkel, 2007). Also, immigration and integration policies have
become stricter. Immigration flows are actively prevented (even more than during the 1990s).
Both Scholten (2007) and Bruquetas-Callejo (2011) discuss how after the turn of the millennium
immigration and integration discourses in policy become more closely linked. For instance,
through a mathematical model Integration New Style aims to adjust the number of immigrants to
9

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

the extent in which immigrants can effectively integrate in society, both socio-economically and
socio-culturally (Scholten, 2007). For this purpose, migrant selection is justified. Furthermore,
since 2004, all migrants are obliged to pass an integration exam in order to apply for Dutch
citizenship. The integration exam is supposed to learn newcomers about socio-economic and
cultural aspects of the Dutch society. The coupling of immigration and integration discourses is
also embedded institutionally, in the change of integration policy coordination from the Ministry
of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Justice.
According to Schinkel (2007) the recent integration policy Integration Memorandum 2007-2011 by a
new relative left-wing minister has been understood as a shift away from the focus on sociocultural assimilation to a focus on socio-economic assimilation. Still, illustrated by the slogan
Make Sure You Fit In!, the discourse of the Memorandum remains assimilationist in nature.
Active citizenship and own responsibility remain key values in the Memorandum.
Conclusions
Studies on the evolution of policy discourses on immigration and integration in the Netherlands
show a change from a pluralist paradigm in the 1980s, in which cultural differences are appraised,
towards the present assimilationist paradigm in which cultural differences are regarded
problematic. During this shift, immigration has increasingly become regulated. In Table 1, an
overview is provided by Scholten (2011) of the discussed different paradigm shifts in Dutch
immigration and integration policy, as discussed above.
Table 1. The evolution of Dutch integration policy paradigms since the late 1970s

Terminology

Social
classification

Causal stories

Normative
perspective

Guest worker policy

< 1978
Integration with
retention of identity

Pluralist policy
1978-1994
Mutual adaptation in a
multicultural society

Integrationist policy
1994-2003
Integration, Active
citizenship

Immigrant groups
defined by national
origin and framed as
temporary guests

Ethnic or cultural
minorities
characterised by socioeconomic and sociocultural problems
Social-cultural
emancipation as a
condition for socialeconomic
participation
The Netherlands as an
open, multi-cultural
society

Citizens or Foreign,
individual members of
specific minority
groups

Assimilationist
policy >2003
Adaptation,
Common
citizenship
Immigrants defined
as policy targets
because of socialcultural differences

Social-economic
participation as a
condition for socialcultural emancipation

Social-cultural
differences as
obstacle to
integration

Civic participation in a
de-facto multicultural
society

Preservation of
national identity and
social cohesion

Social-economic
participation and
retention of socialcultural identity
The Netherlands
should not be a
country of
immigration

Source: adapted from Scholten (2011)

3. Policy strategies on diversity in Rotterdam

In line with discourse shifts in national policy on citizenship, migration and diversity, Rotterdam
started with the so-called Ethnic Minorities Policy in the 1980s and the Facet Policy in the 1990s. Both
policies targeted specific groups. The latter focused on non-ethnic minority groups as well. The
focus on specific (ethnic) groups changed in the 1990s, when policies started to become more

10

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

mainstreamed. From 1998 to 2002, Rotterdam had a cross-cutting3 diversity policy called The
Multi-coloured City. The policy was based on a pluralist discourse. Diversity was defined along
socio-cultural lines and it was seen as a quality and a matter that concerns all citizens (groups) and
employers in the city. In 2001, Rotterdam openly celebrated cultural diversity as a Cultural Capital
of Europe. In 2002, this approach came to an abrupt end when after decades of rule by the
Labour Party the populist party Liveable Rotterdam (Leefbaar Rotterdam) came to power. In line
with national discourses on diversity at that time, this party aimed to achieve socio-cultural
assimilation of newcomers, particularly Muslims. Ethnic and religious differences were framed as
a safety threat for the city. So-called Islam debates organised by Liveable Rotterdam had a
polarising effect. Liveable Rotterdam gave voice to existing discontent among a significant part of
the population. Yet, by doing so, diversity was framed as a problem and a matter of ethnic and
religious divides. Since 2006, the city is governed by the Labour Party again, but they never (re)introduced the kind of diversity policies which were run prior to 20024. How does the city of
Rotterdam deal with growing diversity today?
Qualitative interviews were held with 10 governmental and 10 non-governmental policy actors on
their experiences with present policy on diversity in Rotterdam (see Appendix I). In this chapter
we first analyse governmental views on diversity policy. We examine 10 policy documents that
interviewees identified as most influential for the governance of diversity in Rotterdam (see
Appendices II and III for an overview). They fall under 7 policy areas (General Urban Policy;
Citizenship and Integration; Housing; Work and Income; Safety; Education). In addition, we
discuss how the interviewed governmental policy actors interpret the ways in which diversity is
governed in the city. Second, we discuss how the interviewed non-governmental policy actors
interpret this. The analysis of the policies and interviews is guided by eight research questions
that are outlined in Box 1. We finish with conclusions and a discussion of the findings.
Box 1. Research questions for the analysis of current policies on diversity
1. Within what legal and policy frameworks does the relevant policy act?
2. Which actors are involved in the policy development and implementation?
3. How important is diversity in comparison with other policy topics in terms of budgets
and human capital?
4. How is diversity defined, and is this a broad or narrow definition?
5. Is diversity understood as a problem, a neutral fact, or a quality?
6. Does the policy aim to foster social cohesion, social mobility, and/or economic
performance?
7. Is the policy aimed at everyone, a specific group, and/or a specific area?
8. Does the policy call for equity or the redistribution of resources; diversity or the
recognition of multiple voices; and/or places of encounter or the democratic liberalisation
of diverse groups?

By cross-cutting policy we mean that the policy applies to all municipal departments rather than to one specific one.
This short history of diversity policy in Rotterdam is e.g. based on interviews with a former vice-mayor on Diversity Policy in
Rotterdam; a municipal Programme Manager; a Policy Advisor at the RKCD; and an analysis of the Multi-Coloured City Policy.
3
4

11

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

3.1 Dominant governmental discourses of urban policy and diversity

Key policy documents
Rotterdam City Policy
At the start of their 4-year government term in 2010, the ruling coalition developed a City Plan
and an associated Implementation Strategy that respectively define what should be done and
how. All policies that we will discuss here have been developed in line with the Rotterdam City
Plan (CP) and Implementation Strategy (IS) 2010-2014.

12

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

City Plan and Implementation Strategy 2010-2014

While social cohesion and safety were central themes in previous City Plans, the main objective of
this coalition is to strengthen the economic performance of Rotterdam. It intends to do so by
encouraging talent development and entrepreneurship; creating an attractive, beautiful and safe
city to live and work; and restructuring the municipal organisation. In the Netherlands, municipal
responsibilities are increasing due to decentralisation processes while their budgets are declining.
The total budget for the municipality of Rotterdam has decreased from 4.4 billion in 2010 to
3.8 billion in 2014. Thus, the City Plan argues: we will have to do more with less [money] (p.7). Most
Rotterdammers will have to rely on their own talents; their abilities and social networks, so the
Implementation Strategy says. The coalition will continue to support the utmost disadvantaged
groups. In return, the coalition will encourage, and, when necessary, force all Rotterdammers to
participate in the economy, paid or unpaid. Newcomers are asked to make extra efforts to
participate in society. In addition, the municipality will cut back on its workforce, and ask
professional and voluntary social partners (e.g. schools, health care institutions, and volunteers)
for financial support, particularly regarding executive activities on (migrant) integration,
participation and citizenship.
The City Strategy and Implementation Strategy both refer to diversity in relation to the intended
diversification of the housing stock and business districts. Diversity is approached broadly, in
terms of age, household composition, ethnic background and lifestyle. Both policies do not
discuss how policy goals will deal with a diverse population. They merely refer to diversity as an
economic asset: We will define the economic power of our city through the diversity of our population (IS, p.4).
Note that it is not explained how policy is going to achieve this and that this is one of two
sentences in both documents that mention diversity. Social mobility and social cohesion are framed as
tools to enhance the citys economic performance in times of a declining municipality as reflected in
the following phrases: Rotterdammers develop their talents [] and hereby help the city make progress. []
Less welfare state means more welfare society5: citizens rely more on one another (IS, p.4).
The City Plan and Implementation Strategy mention a wide variety of specific target groups for
particular policy programmes and initiatives (e.g. people on benefits; elderly; students; families;
drug addicts; women). At the same time, the coalition says it wants to invest in all Rotterdammers
to support not only the economic success of the middle and upper class, but also the success of
lower socio-economic groups. The policy is implemented through an area-based policy approach
in which the wishes and needs in areas are regarded essential. The area-based approach entails an intensive and
productive collaboration with the Districts (CP, p.5). The policies strive to redistribute financial resources,
but do not solely focus on lower-income groups. It is recognised that not all Rotterdammers have
the abilities to participate equally in society. Therefore, the municipality will take care of the
utmost disadvantaged groups as national legislation requires them to do. Yet, the coalition wants
to invest in higher-income groups and successful businesses as well. The policies do not address
the social value of difference, or the right to be different, nor do they aim to generate spaces of
encounter or social cohesion. Economic performance seems to be the major drive.
Citizenship and integration policies
The most specific reference to the governance of diversity in Rotterdam was found in the
following two policy documents that address citizenship and integration. The Citizenship Policy
was referred to most often by most interviewees.

Citizens rely more on one another when the state provides less welfare services. The coalition calls this a welfare society.

13

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Citizenship Policy. Participation: Selecting Talent

In line with the current City Plan, the main objective of this policy is to stimulate citizens to
participate in the urban economy (paid or unpaid). The policy seeks to enhance the abilities and
opportunities of all Rotterdam citizens, self-reliant and less self-reliant, by stimulating them to
develop their talents, and by reducing barriers to empowerment. The focus is on four fields of
interest: the emancipation of women, gays and lesbians; counteracting discrimination; advocating
diversity as an asset; and improving social competence and language skills through non-formal
education. The second focus area (counteracting discrimination) is subject to the Municipal AntiDiscrimination Facilities Law that obliges municipalities to provide accessible facilities to report and
get support in case of discrimination. The other focus areas are not covered by national law.
The policy follows up on the Participation and Citizenship 2007-2010 policy, is funded from the
citys budget for participation, and has suffered large budget cuts: from an annual 8 million in
2010 to 3.7 million in 2014. Funding is only available for activities that seek to share and
generate knowledge on the four fields of interest mentioned above. The policy identifies three
functions: knowledge development and sharing; volunteers get active; and the citizen in the lift. Four
knowledge centres on the emancipation of women, the emancipation of homosexuals, antidiscrimination and diversity are funded to ensure that existing knowledge on these topics is
safeguarded. Volunteer organisations and citizens can apply for funding for activities in the four
focus areas if the activities ensure social mobility and are accessible to all. The municipality asks
professional institutions for social services to take responsibility for carrying out citizenship
activities. The policy is developed in association with the four knowledge centres.
The policy uses a comprehensive definition of diversity: [] there is a wide variety of values, attitudes,
culture, beliefs, ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, knowledge, skills, and life experiences among
Rotterdammers (p.8). Although a key goal of the policy is to generate a more positive
understanding of diversity among citizens, it is acknowledged that diversity sometimes causes
tensions. Also, the measures that the policy suggests to develop focus on tackling negative
understandings of diversity (e.g. discrimination) rather than on extending positive developments.
The policy outcomes seek to achieve the social mobility of individual citizens in order to improve
the economic performance of (neighbourhoods in) the city. The policy wants to use the diversity
optimally to create new ideas, insights and spaces to mobilise the talents of Rotterdammers maximally (p.8). Also
references to social bonding are framed as a token for creating social mobility and economic
performance: it is important that citizens do not only develop their own talents but that through interactions
they can elicit the talents of other citizens and learn to use all existing talents in the city (p.8). The policy
explicitly states to focus on all citizens of Rotterdam and can thus be classified as mainstream
policy. The policy explicitly calls for equal opportunities for all citizens regardless of their
background (e.g. it promotes emancipation and more positive attitudes towards homosexuality6),
for the city-wide recognition of the diversity of the population, and for spaces of encounter
between people with different backgrounds (e.g. through dialogues and work-collaborations).
Specific policies to create spaces of encounter between different population groups are Opzoomer7
Mee and the programme City Initiatives. Opzoomer Mee is focused at stimulating social cohesion by
supporting joint activities in the street. Yearly, almost 1900 streets in Rotterdam participate in this
project. Through municipal grants, City Initiatives enables citizens in Rotterdam to organise city6 In 2013 and 2014 100,000 is spent on more positive attitudes towards homosexuals (half of which is specifically targeted for
acceptance amongst ethnic minority groups). 83,000 is spent on the emancipation of women. In both cases, the funds are
derived from the national government.
7 The term Opzoomeren originates from the Opzoomerstreet in Rotterdam, where in 1989 residents started an initiative to tidy
up their street. It is has become an official verb in the Dutch language.

14

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

wide activities that aim at encouraging social cohesion between residents in Rotterdam. The
yearly budgets for Opzoomer Mee and City Initiatives are 933,000 and 250,000, respectively.
Doing More: Rotterdammers in Action. Integration Strategy
In 2009, the Dutch Minister of Integration, Van der Laan, published a policy letter in which he
pleaded for a two-way integration process between newcomers and native Dutch residents, where
newcomers were asked to make an extra effort, to adapt to Dutch society. The cross-cutting
integration programme that we examine here was developed as a response to the request to the
city board to translate the letter in the context of Rotterdam. With a fairly limited budget of
approximately 150,000 of the citys budget for participation for four years, ending in 2014, the
programme facilitates dialogues and activities on integration, social tensions, culture and language
barriers between Rotterdammers with diverse backgrounds; to contribute to common visions on
Rotterdam society; and to support new networks (e.g. between the cities of Amsterdam and
Rotterdam on integration). It aims to do so in neighbourhoods as well as city-wide. The
programme seeks to support existing activities and measures in the City Plan that contribute to
integration. The content of the programme is partly influenced by the outcomes of consultation
rounds with a variety of stakeholders (e.g. researchers, citizen organisations, and governmental
actors). Although these stakeholders advised the municipality to move beyond the integration debates
(p.3), like the City Plan, the programme shares minister Van der Laans view that newcomers
should assimilate culturally and economically into Dutch Society.
The policy defines diversity relatively narrowly, along two dimensions. First, there is a big diversity
of background and lifestyles of population groups (p.2), which is mainly attributed to the continuing
process of immigration. Second, the programme speaks of the fast and the slow city [] [defined
respectively as] the successful entrepreneurs, the cultural sector, the high educated, ICT, design, the advanced
harbour industry [] [and] the city of the beneficiaries, the low educated, the isolated population groups, of poverty
and stagnation (p.2), first defined as such by Henk Oosterling, urban philosopher and
Rotterdammer. The programme argues that more attention should be paid to commonalities
between people to promote more positive experiences of diversity. Therefore, it proposes
measures that foster more positive understandings of diversity. Yet, the programme mostly
emphasises negative experiences of diversity as it concludes that overall we can speak of a heavy
pressure on social structures in Rotterdam. In line with the City Plan, the programme aims to stimulate
talent and entrepreneurship, the social mobility of citizens, so as to strengthen the economy of
Rotterdam. For instance, the programme advises to facilitate work tours in which unemployed
people of the slow city can meet employers of the fast city in the harbour. The programme claims
to be mainstream, aimed at all Rotterdammers. Newcomers to a city experience difficulties on a
number of matters including language barriers and knowledge of local institutional arrangements.
Nevertheless, according to Doing More newcomers need not expect to be treated differently from
existing residents as this would favour them above existing citizens:
We want equal opportunities for all Rotterdammers and we will counteract unbalanced
approaches. We think this is also part of the constitutional law. The constitutional law forms
a framework for the integration of new Rotterdammers. It creates order in society, entails
rules, and offers protection and opportunities to all citizens (p.4).
This phrase reflects the assimilationist ideas of citizenship that seem to underlie the programme.
The Integration Programme calls for spaces of encounter between diverse social groups. For
instance, it seeks to encourage discussion about social tensions, different cultures, and language
barriers; encourage the development of common images or consensus on Rotterdam society; and
foster new coalitions between diverse groups. The policy calls for equal treatment of Rotterdam
15

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

citizens under the law, but does not encourage socio-economic equity through the redistribution
of resources. The policy recognises a certain degree of diversity in terms of ethnicity and socioeconomic features. Yet, by arguing that citizens belonging to the slow city and newcomers should
adapt to the fast city and cultures of existing residents, it can be questioned if the programme is
really that open to diversity as it proclaims.
Housing Policy and the Rotterdam Law
The City Plan and Urban Vision 20308 form a framework for housing policy in Rotterdam. In the
Housing Vision (HV) 2007-2010 and Implementation Programme (IP) 2010-2014 this is
elaborated in more detail. In addition, several areas in Rotterdam are subject to the controversial
national Law Exceptional Measures Metropolitan Problems - popularly known as the Rotterdam Law
since 2005.
Updated Housing Vision 2007-2010 and Implementation Programme 2010-2014
In line with the City Plan and Urban Vision 2030, the current housing policy aims to make
Rotterdam an attractive residential city where people can choose from a diverse and a high quality
housing stock as part of their housing career. The Implementation Programme identifies seven
efforts to achieve these goals: improve the quality of the housing stock and living environments;
enhance residential satisfaction; encourage renters to buy; govern access to affordable housing;
raise awareness of housing opportunities and create a positive image of Rotterdam as a residential
city; and tackle and prevent nuisance. Hereby, the policy hopes to tackle selective migration9,
poor housing quality, and insufficient housing supply for low-income groups. The policy was
developed by the municipality after consultation with a number of stakeholders including housing
corporations, market parties, and residents (organisations). The municipality hoped to cooperate
with a wide variety of parties to realise their goals.
In the examined housing policies diversity is a matter of residential characteristics and
preferences. Diversity is approached comprehensively: the policies refer to socio-cultural
background, income, age, household size and type, stage in the housing career, and lifestyle of
residents. The connotation of diversity in the policies depends on the scale and the subject. At the
city level, diversity is framed as strength: housing differentiation is realised in order to
accommodate more diverse income groups, lifestyles, age groups, and household types. Also
income diversity is regarded an asset. Particularly in low-income areas, the policy strives for a mix of
incomes. This is most evident in the 2005 Act on Exceptional Measures Concerning Inner-City Problems
that is developed to regulate the proportion of low-income households in deprived urban areas10.
It is now popularly called the Rotterdam Act as it was first proposed by the municipality of
Rotterdam, arguing that certain deprived areas in Rotterdam could not accommodate any more
vulnerable residents. It is presently in effect in five designated areas in Rotterdam. Six major
housing associations in Rotterdam have committed themselves to the Act. Several scholars and
politicians in the Netherlands are critical of the Act and argue that it violates the freedom of
establishment (of vulnerable groups) (see Van Eijk, 2013a; 2013b; Ouwehand, 2006). In addition,
they believe that the Act unofficially aims at limiting the housing opportunities of disadvantaged
ethnic minorities like the proposal for the Act by the 2002-2006 Rotterdam municipality initially
claimed (Ouwehand & Doff, 2013). As this violates the constitution, the target group was then
The City Vision 2030 is a long-term spatial development strategy for Rotterdam that was developed in 2007.
'Selective migration' refers to the situation that more households with relatively high incomes leave Rotterdam than settle in the
city.
10 The Act allows municipalities to exclude people who depend on social security (apart from social security for the elderly) and
cannot financially support themselves, and who have not lived in the municipal region in the preceding six years, from rental
housing in a number of designated areas with high concentrations of low-income households.
8
9

16

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

changed into disadvantaged newcomers. Also, critics point to evaluations of the Act that show
failing results. Nevertheless, in 2013 the Act was expanded and extended for another four years.
While the Implementation Programme is positive about income diversity in neighbourhoods, it is
not so positive about diversity of lifestyles and ages: the residential and living climate is under pressure in
various places in the city due to (too) much mix of different lifestyles (IP, p.22). Therefore, the policy
advocates to use a lifestyle approach in which residential areas are labelled for a specific lifestyle
and sometimes age group (e.g. elderly; students), and house seekers are informed about this when
buying and renting housing. The lifestyle approach in Rotterdam Housing Policy is based on the
Brand Strategy Research (BSR) model by a company called SmartAgent Company. Based on
peoples' values, motives and needs SmartAgent Company identifies four categories of residential
lifestyles: yellow (involvement and harmony); green (seclusion and safety); blue (control and
ambition); and red (freedom and flexibility) (SmartAgent Company, 2008). SmartAgent Company
has categorised all neighbourhoods in Rotterdam by residential lifestyles. Housing corporations
inform renters about the dominant lifestyle in a residential area. In the case of contrasting
lifestyles renters receive a (non-binding) negative recommendation. Also future owners are
informed about the prominent lifestyle in a particular area. The lifestyle approach aims to raise
residential satisfaction by preventing social tensions. This is thought to enhance the attractiveness
of Rotterdam as a residential city. Critics question the feasibility of the lifestyle approach: can it
capture the growing diversity and change of residential preferences and behaviours and how does
it deal with conflicting lifestyles within households (Van Kempen & Pinkster, 2003)?
In line with the City Plan, the main goal in the housing policy is to enhance the economic
position of Rotterdam: it is our ambition to enhance the economic support for shops, schools and other facilities
and to generate a more balanced population (HV, p.17). Socially cohesive, high quality and mixedincome residential areas that are clustered by lifestyle act as a tool to attract higher-income groups
and achieve such an economic balance. By stimulating renters to buy, and buyers to stay in the
city, the policy seeks to control residential mobility. As such, residential mobility is a tool to
improve the attractiveness of Rotterdam as a residential city as well. Although the policies do
discuss specific housing matters for specific target groups (e.g. families, elderly, students) the
examined policy is explicitly framed as mainstream policy:
it is our ambition to improve the quality of living of all Rotterdammers. It is important that everyone,
contemporary and future residents, resides with pleasure. [] We look beyond the middle and higher income
groups that we seek to retain and attract. We pay attention to residential satisfaction of all Rotterdammers, thus
also those with a low income. Rotterdam should become a residential city for everyone (HV, p.16).
The goal to attract higher-income renters to buy a dwelling is not only presented as a way to
achieve a more balanced housing market, but also as a way to generate more affordable housing
for lower-income groups. In the Netherlands, a significant part of social housing is occupied by
middle-income groups. When they leave their rented dwelling for an owner-occupied dwelling,
more housing is thought to become available for lower-income groups. The policy does not aim
at facilitating spaces of encounter. On the contrary, by clustering residents with similar lifestyles
the policy seems to seek to accomplish the opposite. Income mix is not framed as a way to
generate contact between different social groups but as a way to increase the economic position
of the area. Notably, the policies do not explain how more socio-economically balanced
neighbourhoods will benefit the area and its citizens.

17

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Urban Policy for Rotterdam-South

Approximately 200,000 people live in Rotterdam-South. The area is one of the most deprived
areas in the Netherlands in a form that is considered un-Dutch (NGN, 2011, p.1). Compared to
the city of Rotterdam and other cities in the Netherlands, average education levels are low,
unemployment rates are high, housing quality is poor, and residential satisfaction is low (PNP,
2013). Because of its history as a settlement place for (immigrant) dock-workers the population in
Rotterdam-South majorly consists of low-skilled workers and ethnic minorities. Due to its
relatively cheap housing stock the area is subject to selective migration11. In 2006, the
Municipality of Rotterdam, the three districts in Rotterdam-South, and four housing corporations
started a comprehensive revitalisation programme for the area called Pact op Zuid (Pact for South).
In 2012, the Programme was followed up by the National Programme Rotterdam-South (NPRS).
The NPRS consists of a Policy Programme and an Implementation Plan.
South Works! National Programme Rotterdam-South and Implementation Plan 2012-2014
The goal of the NPRS is to decrease the unnecessary deprivation among residents and to improve the quality of
life in South (PNP, 2013, p.1) so that in 20 years time the area will be on a comparable socioeconomic level with other urban areas in the G412. The programme focusses on three themes:
education, work, and housing. It aims to increase educational performance of young residents,
increase employment levels, and improve the housing stock to counteract selective migration.
The programme involves multiple forms of citizen participation. NPRS focusses on the districts
of Charlois, Feijenoord and IJsselmonde. Within these areas, most attention is given to 7 focus
areas that are considered the most problematic. The programme is coordinated by a Project
Office, and governed by the National Government, the central Municipality of Rotterdam, three
local districts, a resident committee, and various education and healthcare institutions, housing
corporations, and local businesses. The NPRS is financed by the National Government, the
Municipality of Rotterdam, and local housing corporations and businesses.
The word diversity as such is not explicitly mentioned in the NPRS. Indirectly, however, the
programme refers to it in two ways. First, it is argued that the population is young and has a mix
of backgrounds (p.8). The mixed population is portrayed as an asset as the residents are thought to
be successful in matters that governments and institutions easily overlook (p.8). Yet, these backgrounds and
matters are not defined. Second, the Programme seeks to achieve diversity of income and a
diverse housing stock. A diverse housing stock is thought to attract and retain higher-income
groups in the area. Framed in this manner, diversity is seen as a quality. Nevertheless, the
Programme does not mention how income diversity will exactly benefit the residents of
Rotterdam-South. Furthermore, generating and recognising diversity are no primary goals. The NPRS
can be classified as an area-based policy as it targets residents in designated areas in RotterdamSouth. Under all three policy themes (education, work and housing), the policy seeks to improve
the economic performance and social mobility of residents in Rotterdam-South. For instance, the policy
seeks to align local educational programmes with job opportunities, and to give benefit recipients
priority in internships and vacancies. Also, by diversifying the housing stock, the policy hopes to
give residents the opportunity for a better dwelling within their own district. The policy does not
aim to facilitate encounters between residents, let alone does it strive for social cohesion. The NPRS is
essentially a redistribution programme. The scale of socio-economic problems in Rotterdam-South
has led to the unique urban governance construction (in the Dutch context) whereby multiple
11 Selective migration refers to the fact that a relatively a higher amount of higher income groups leave Rotterdam-South than
those who settle in the in the area.
12 In Dutch Policy the G4 is used to refer to four largest cities in the Netherlands: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague, and
Utrecht.

18

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

governmental and non-governmental parties at different spatial scales collaborate with the
collective aim to improve the economic well-being of the area and its residents.
Work and income policy
At present, three policy documents on economic matters are at work in Rotterdam: the Economic
Vision 2020, the Economy and Labour Market Programme and Rotterdam Works! The first two
documents discuss diversity in relation to macro-economic processes of supply and demand (in
an implicit way). The latter addresses diversity in relation to individual people and is therefore
most relevant for this research.
Rotterdam Works! Policy Framework Work and Re-integration 2011-2014
Rotterdam Works! implements the goal of the Rotterdam City Plan 2010-2014 to encourage
Rotterdammers to participate in and contribute to society through paid or unpaid work. The goal
of the policy is:
that as many Rotterdammers who receive benefits as possible become economically
independent and no longer need benefits. Every client even if paid work is not feasible (yet)
is active by contributing to society in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, they develop themselves.
This, we call Full Engagement (p.5).
The implementation of Full Engagement is guided by six priority areas. First, in order to
encourage paid work, the policy will stimulate educative reintegration trajectories for unemployed
people through a combination of paid and unpaid work. Second, employers will have the
opportunity to receive municipal subsidies for the labour costs of employees who are in the
process of reintegrating into the labour market. Third, young people will be required to either
have a paid job or to be in education. Fourth, language education will help participation in society
through paid or unpaid work. Fifth, barriers to paid employment that are caused by health issues
will be mapped and addressed. Sixth, the municipality will form partnerships with professionals
(e.g. health insurance companies, housing corporations, healthcare facilities, schools, industries
and businesses) to improve the effectiveness of its strategies. The policy relies on the
participation of unemployed residents in Rotterdam (receiving benefits).
Diversity is not mentioned explicitly in Rotterdam Works! However, the policy does acknowledge
the existence of diversity in abilities of residents to participate in the urban economy. All
residents are required to participate and hence it is assumed that they can. Nevertheless, in the
policy residents are allowed to partake according to their capabilities. The policy assumes that all
Rotterdammers possess talents. This reflects a positive understanding of the abilities of citizens.
Citizens receiving benefits can be seen as the principal target group of the policy. The policy pays
particular attention to people that experience difficulties accessing the labour market, young
people receiving benefits, and newcomers to the city that are obliged to or want to follow
language and integration courses. However, paid work is presented as the norm. The unemployed
and the benefit recipients are presented as a problem:
Rotterdam is a working class city, and we are proud of this. Sitting on the couch at home
while being unemployed and receiving benefits is not an option (p.3).
And:
Rotterdammers that can but do not want to [participate in the economy] get sanctioned (p.12).

19

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Rotterdam Works! can be regarded as a redistribution policy, albeit one subject to conditions and
obligations for the recipients. While the national and municipal budgets for socio-economic
participation have declined significantly (even though demands for benefits are increasing), the
policy does seek to provide disadvantaged people with tools to increase their socio-economic
opportunities. The main goal of the policy is to increase the social mobility of residents so as to
improve their economic performance and reduce their dependency on state benefits. The examined
policy does not seek to generate encounters between people with diverse backgrounds, let alone does
it seek to generate social cohesion.
Safety Policy
Programme Safety 2014-2018. #Safe 010
The Programme Safety 2014-2018 acts as a framework for all safety-related programmes and
projects. The policy aspires that all neighbourhoods in Rotterdam are safe, and that residents, entrepreneurs
and visitors of the city feel safe (p.3). A four-tier approach is adopted. First, Rotterdammers are at the
heart of the governance of safety in the city. In collaboration with the municipality and the police,
residents determine which three problems with regard to safety and liveability deserve most
priority. Second, the municipality will enforce the law and meanwhile invest in new ways to make
people live up to it. Third, the municipality wants to collaborate with multiple parties at various
scales (e.g. the national and local police, residents (platforms), city districts, local businesses) to
improve its approaches regarding safety in the city. Last, the municipality will inform all parties in
Rotterdam about safety matters in the city so as to move towards a collective approach. The
policy has been developed by the municipality in collaboration with residents, entrepreneurs,
academics and professionals.
The examined 44-page long Safety Policy refers to diversity twice. First, it does so when
discussing the intended collaborative approach. A broad definition of diversity is used:
the structure of the population is changing. There are more young people and elderly people.
Newcomers arrive. We will keep in touch with all these groups and their social networks
(p.6).
It remains unclear who 'all these groups' exactly are. Their existence is presented without a
particular positive or negative implication for the governance of safety in the city. In the second
reference to diversity, the term ethnic diversity is used. Ethnic diversity is portrayed as a potential
threat to safety that professionals will be trained to deal with. Particularly groups that are
culturally different, can form a risk for society, it is argued:
having a different cultural background can cause difficulties to participate in society. Due to
mutual misunderstandings that are caused by cultural differences, it is sometimes difficult to
reach out to these groups. Therefore, we give these groups particular attention. We make
contact with communities of diverse cultural backgrounds. [] With our knowledge, we
train professionals how they can deal with cultural diversity. [] In addition, we discuss
with these communities how they can better utilise their own powers to take responsibility
(p.31).
Neither the targeted cultural groups, nor the groups that do not form a potential threat are
defined in the Safety Policy. Perhaps, the Rotterdam Action Programme Antilleans that targets
problems of Antilleans (on display on a municipal webpage on safety policy) may serve as an
indication of this policy approach. Besides ethnic minorities, the Safety Policy in Rotterdam
targets several other so-called risk groups, such as drug criminals, radicalised people, EU-migrants,
20

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

homeless people as well as (criminal) young people that cause nuisance. The policy uses an areabased approach. It targets all neighbourhoods in Rotterdam differently. Those that are relatively
unsafe get particular attention. Amongst other initiatives, a project with so-called urban marines is
set up to improve the safety in these neighbourhoods. As most attention is paid to the most
vulnerable groups and areas the Safety policy can be regarded a redistribution policy.
The policy acknowledges that socio-economic and socio-spatial disadvantages can encourage
criminal behaviours, but does not focus primarily on encouraging social mobility or economic
performance of residents. Instead, the policy mostly focuses on correcting unlawful and
encouraging lawful behaviours. The use of role models to prevent young people and ethnic
minority groups to isolate themselves from society can serve as an example of this behaviourcentred approach. In several ways, encouraging social cohesion is used as a tool to prevent criminal
behaviours, not as a goal in itself. As an example, the policy discusses an experiment of the
municipality, the Last Chance Approach, where an appeal is done to the social networks (e.g.
family, friends, and teachers) of young people with negative behaviours [] to activate and support them
to change their behaviour and to solve their problems (p.37). Indeed, stimulating encounters between people
with legitimate and illegitimate behaviours is used as a means to encourage safety in the examined
policy.
Educational Policy
Rotterdam Educational Policy 2011-2014: Better Performance and Attack on Drop-outs
Current educational policy in Rotterdam consists of two related policy documents: Better
Performance (BP) and Attack on Drop-outs (AD). Both aim to increase the quality and performance
of education in Rotterdam. The former intends to increasing educational performances, through
three lines of approach: extending school hours; professionalising the educational environment;
and raising parental involvement in the educational career of their children. The latter aims to
prevent school drop-outs through two lines of approach: keeping children at school; and guiding
children that have dropped out back to school. The educational policy is complemented by
various projects and programmes. For this study, an interesting one is the Good, Better, Best project
under the Language Attack Programme that aims at increasing parental involvement at school by
improving the Dutch language skills of parents that have difficulties with the language. It is
financed by the EU. The Educational Policy is largely financed by the national and municipal
government. Some programmes and projects are financed by the schools themselves. The policy
was developed by Rotterdam School Boards and the Municipality and carried out by educational
employees, volunteers, parents, municipal employees, and businesses.
Diversity is not a prominent topic in current education policy in Rotterdam. Nevertheless, the
Better Performance document does refer to diversity twice. This is first implicitly, as a matter of
ethnicity and socio-economic status:
Rotterdam is home to a range of nationalities. Two third of young people grow up in families
that do not descend from the Netherlands. Although Rotterdam is home to many second and
third generations immigrants, often little or no Dutch is spoken at home. One in three
students grows up in a family with low-educated parents. These young people rarely
participate in higher education forms and do not always obtain a degree to participate in the
labour market (BP, p.13).
The second reference to diversity is more explicit. Rotterdam schoolchildren are described as very
diverse in backgrounds and language and development levels (BP, p.13). In both instances, the diversity is
framed as a problem for the socio-economic well-being of the city and for teaching the children,
21

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

respectively. The policy aims to solve these problems by stimulating disadvantaged and nonDutch speaking groups to assimilate into the (Dutch) urban economy. The Attack on Drop-outs
document does not explicitly refer to diversity, and uses general terms such as youngsters, children,
and Rotterdammers to describe its target population. Both policy documents indirectly refer to
diversity in another way: a diversity of talents. In contrast with ethnic and socio-economic
diversity, diverse talents are framed both as a quality and a challenge. Thus, the policy recognises
diversity but certainly does not promote it. Although the Educational Policy is aimed at all
schoolchildren in Rotterdam under 23 years old, specific attention is given to so-called target group
children [] [defined as] children of whom at least one parent was born in a non-Western country or of whom the
parents were born in a Western country and at least one parent has a low education level (BP, p.10) and their
parents, as well as children that perform exceptionally well at school. Priority is also given to
children that live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods13 of Rotterdam. The policy shows elements of
a redistribution policy but cannot be regarded as such completely because it invests both in
disadvantaged groups and areas and children that perform well. Increased social mobility and better
performance of school children are framed as the primary goals of the policy as this is thought to
benefit the economic performance of the city as a whole:
with its relatively young population, the city is a breeding ground for talent. It provides
opportunities but also challenges to allow this talent to develop optimally. There are still too
many youngsters who do not utilise their talents enough. In addition, a well-educated labour
force is essential for the economic, social and cultural development of the city. Education in
Rotterdam plays a key role in this (BP, p.3).
The policy does not aim at generating encounters between diverse social groups to stimulate positive
understandings of diversity. Two arrangements that are discussed in the policy do focus on
generating social cohesion: Intensive School Arrangements (ISO) for schools that perform (very) weakly
and Top Classes for all other schools in Rotterdam. As part of these programmes, schools are
linked to each other to support schools to further develop a method that leads to better educational results
(BP, p.15). However, as the phrase shows, in these arrangements social cohesion is not portrayed
as a goal but a means to accomplish the primary policy goal of better educational performance of
schools.
Interpretations of diversity policy by governmental actors
Out of the interviews carried out with 10 governmental policy actors, we have identified seven
interrelated themes concerning the extent to which and ways in which policies address diversity
in Rotterdam.
Little attention for diversity
Most governmental policy actors confirm that the word diversity as such is not often explicitly
mentioned in present policy documents in Rotterdam. Interviewees argue that diversity is also
not discussed much in municipal departments, districts, and social institutions. For instance, a
Political Advisor argues:
Years ago, I used to work with it [diversity] a lot as a civil servant. But, in recent years this
is not the case anymore. I believe that it has faded away a bit. Before, there used to be an
13 On the basis of four categories (capacities, living environment, participation and social bonding) the Municipality of Rotterdam
monitors and classifies its neighbourhoods with a Social Index (see CRRSC, 2009). Disadvantaged neighbourhoods are defined
through their low score on this index.

22

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

entire post for Integration and Participation [policy]. Today, this [formal attention for
diversity] has certainly become less [6 January 2014].
Interviewees explain that within the municipality diversity is presently a matter of the Social
Affairs Department. Nevertheless, the interviewees argue that it should be a cross-cutting matter:
all civil servants should become more aware of how policy and their actions affect the diverse
population. In addition, a number of interviewees argue that the personnel of the municipality
and institutions should become more diverse to better represent the diversity of the population
of Rotterdam. This will contribute to better services as the municipality will then have better
knowledge of the diverse city, it is argued. A Programme Manager argues:
I think that as an organisation we do not know our city well enough. Of course, there are
some colleagues [that work on this matter], but the group is fairly limited. However, a civil
servant that chooses to work for the municipality must know its city. Sometimes, that is not
the case. [] Rotterdam is a diverse city. [] Therefore, we should be representative for [the
existing diversity in] society. And that, we are just not. I find this a point of concern [1
November 2013].
In the same line, some interviewees mention that the municipal budget for the governance of
diversity is fairly low. When asked, most argue that only the budgets of citizenship and
integration policy can be regarded budgets for governing diversity, counting 4.8 million14 and
150,000 on a total municipal budget of 4.2 billion for 2013. Indirectly, many more services are
working with diversity such as the departments of housing, education, safety, and work and
income. However, not all policy actors identify this as a diversity focus in their work. In
interviews with two Policy Advisors, after a lengthy conversation on housing and income
differentiation strategies and the lifestyle approach, they argue that diversity is not an issue in
housing policy and that there is no budget for it. According to the vice-mayor on Labour Market,
Higher Education, Innovation and Participation (LEIP) the budget cuts could also bring new
opportunities as they force relevant social partners to become active and innovative.
Diversity is often defined in terms of ethnicity
Although diversity is sometimes defined broadly, e.g. as a matter concerning cultural diversity, religious
diversity, sexual orientation, et cetera [Policy Advisor, 23 October 2013], more often it is framed and
understood in terms of ethnic diversity. In the interviews the majority of governmental policy
actors interpret diversity as a matter of ethnicity. When asked about diversity in Rotterdam, a
vice-mayor for Housing, Spatial Planning, Property, and Urban Economy (HPPE) use the
concept of multiculturalism, and an Area Director talks about ethnic groups in the
neighbourhood (e.g. the Turks, Antilleans, Moroccans, etc.). Rather than perceiving it as a
dimension of diversity, an Area Manager distinguishes between socio-economic background and
diversity, which she refers to as ethnicity:
Many people with low incomes move to these neighbourhoods because of the affordable
housing stock. The people that move in are often of foreign descent because often many
[foreigners] have a low income. But is the starting point then diversity? Would it not be the
socio-economic situation? [7 November 2013].

This amount includes the budgets for Citizenship Policy (3.7 million), Opzoomer Mee (933,000) and City
Initiatives (250,000).
14

23

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

The only exception is housing policy. Here, interviewees claim that diversity is not interpreted as
a matter of ethnicity but as one concerning incomes, and lifestyles:
For us diversity is primarily about income groups. To generate a stable socio-economic basis
in a specific area, or at least to make sure that it [the housing stock] will not become too onesided. [So] that an area does not become increasingly vulnerable [Senior Policy Advisor,
28 October 2013].
Diversity is often understood as a problem
Most governmental policy actors explain that diversity is often understood as a problem that the
city needs to cope with. Even though the city particularly in its citizenship and integration
policy - tries to frame diversity as a quality, for instance by talking about talent development and the
citys 174 nationalities, policies often pay more attention to potential negative effects of diversity,
such as social tensions, economic competition, and socio-economic exclusion, rather than on
extending positive developments, interviewees argue. According to an vice-mayor on HPPE
In every day practice people worry [indeed] about the negative sides [of diversity]. []
People are concerned with the here and now. When you are unemployed and thousands of
people move here, it makes no sense [for me to] tell a good story about it is all so important
for Europe etcetera. The unemployed will just see the negative consequences [6 January
2014].
Two Policy Advisors and the vice-mayor on HPPE see the lifestyle approach in housing policy as
a way to avoid potential negative effects of diversity and to increase residential satisfaction.
When governmental policy actors were asked why policy makers do not discuss diversity,
understand diversity in terms of ethnicity, and hesitate to portray it as a quality, several
interviewees argue that this derives from the 4-year term in which Liveable Rotterdam had
significant power in the city council (2002-2006). This caused a radical policy discourse shift from
pluralism to assimilation. Interviewees mention that negative experiences of ethnic diversity were
emphasised. A Programme Manager describes it as follows:
A motion was submitted no diversity policy and hereafter the taboo emerged. It is very
strange. Abroad, we talk about diversity with no trouble - nice stories then everyone is
impressed and wants to come and have a look at Rotterdam. But, internally we do not talk
about it and you do not see it back on paper either. In the entire City Plan, I think diversity
and integration are mentioned once as words, but then no more. It is the fear in politics. In
this case I would say it is the PvdA [Labour Party] who is scared to put diversity into the
foreground. It is just not talked about [1 November 2013].
However, according to the two interviewed vice-mayors there is no need to reintroduce diversity
as a policy issue in Rotterdam when it is defined in terms of ethnicity. It will merely lead to
emotional discussions on the pros and cons of diversity, they argue, which is unfruitful because
diversity is a fact: fortunately, we do not bicker about is it something good or something bad? anymore
[vice-mayor on LEIP, 8 January 2014]. Also, with the decreasing municipal budgets and shift
towards networked governance, both question whether it is the role of the municipality to govern
social experiences of diversity today.

24

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Policies that approach diversity as a quality generally focus on the economic benefits
When diversity is seen as an asset in policy, municipal policy actors mainly talk about its potential
economic qualities. Two narratives can be distinguished in this respect. First, several interviewees
argued that a diverse labour force will allow the municipality and other non-governmental
organisations and businesses to better know the city [Senior Policy Advisor, 23 October 2013].
This will allow organisations to be more responsive to society and the market. Second, most
interviewees argue that the city should use the international networks of its citizens to improve its
economic competitiveness:
The fact that the city is so diverse makes that you can easily build bridges to the rest of the
world. You [the city] are not one group but you represent the rest of the world. [] But, in
order to recognise the diversity and talent and to seek how to develop it, that is what we are
currently trying to find out [Programme Manager, 1 November 2013].
According to the vice-mayor on LEIP, in contrast with urban policy, bottom-up governance
initiatives in Rotterdam do often focus on social rather than economic dimensions of diversity,
e.g. through cultural exchanges, and support relations between different cultural and socioeconomic groups.
Inconsistencies in the scope of policy (implementation)
Although the analysis of policy documents has shown that many inconsistencies exist in policies
that address diversity, one of these is discussed particularly frequently and extensively by the
interviewees, namely the tension between the stated universal nature of a policy and its focus on
particular groups in its actual implementation. Interviewees argue that to the outside world, the
municipality communicates to strive for mainstream policy [Programme Manager, 1 November 2013].
However, this is not evident in all policies. Safety policy, for instance, focuses on various target
groups, a few interviewees say. A Programme Manager argues:
As municipality we seek to communicate unambiguously but in our practice you can see
different trajectories. For instance, [] [the citizenship policy team] says: we do not practice
policy for specific groups very explicitly. In the Programme Mee(r) Doen, when it is necessary,
for instance, to talk with the Pakistanis, we go and talk with Pakistanis. [] So that is
the Social Affairs Department, then you have the Department of Work and Income, they
say: our policies do not target specific groups. To the outside world, the municipality
communicates: our policies do not target specific groups. But, [in practice] it depends on the
relevant alderman, managers, and the civil servant whether and why they deviate from this.
For example, we have the Somalis. That is a group with many problems. The Department of
Work and Income makes an exception for this. Not structurally though. Previously, we had
structural subsidies for specific groups. That we have no longer [1 November 2013].
Mainstream policy is not always evident in policy implementation either. According to two Policy
Advisors, housing policy adopts an area-based approach in which the local needs of areas
significantly influence the policy approach. Indeed, an interview with an Area Director and Area
Manager reflected a customised implementation of policy, depending on the area and target
group:
You cannot just implement municipal policy in a city district, [] you need to coordinate
[municipal] supply and [local] demand. [] Lets say that there is no money to maintain
public space, the gardens [according to the municipality]. Local employees would say: great
starting point: in that street it would work out fine, but over there certainly not. We need an
25

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

extra commitment to get people to clean up there once a week. [] You have to know
exactly what is going on in your area. You cannot just decide that all people clean up [7
November 2013].
The two explain that the implementation of mainstream policy also depends on the employees of
a district. For instance, they argue that the district of Delfshaven is much stricter with the
requirement that NGOs can only get subsidies when activities target multiple social groups than
the district of Feijenoord.
Some interviewees are concerned that a mainstream policy approach is not sensitive enough to
the needs of diverse social groups, particularly vulnerable groups in society. A Policy Advisor
expresses his concerns about mainstream policy and argues that more attention should be paid to
disadvantaged groups. Not only does mainstream policy run the risk of excluding certain social
groups, he argues, but when it is not sensitive to diversity it will be ineffective as well:
If you want to do something about the health of Rotterdam children in Rotterdam West,
then it is certainly important to know that the parents who live there have a certain
background, that they communicate in a different way with their children than in Schiebroek
or Kralingen [more affluent areas in Rotterdam], that the manners and communication are
different. I am not only talking about language. Sometimes, that can be a problem as well,
but also the way you interact with each other is undoubtedly different, family relations are
different. So if you want to reach children there, in Rotterdam West, then you need to
implement different instruments. If you do not take local diversity into account, you will
simply become less effective [23 October 2013].
The vice-mayor on LEIP agrees that policy should provide enough space for specific
interventions. However, she believes that present urban policy in Rotterdam does this.
From cultural integration to economic participation in urban policy in Rotterdam
Since the presentation of the 2012 research report The State of the Integration: Amsterdam and
Rotterdam Compared, the municipality of Rotterdam has built upon it in its policy, municipal policy
actors argue. The report concludes that the city cannot ask foreign groups to assimilate into
Dutch society as half of the population of both cities have a foreign background. Therefore, most
interviewed municipal policy actors argue that the Department of Social Affairs is moving from a
cultural integration discourse towards a focus on economic participation of all Rotterdammers. Many
interviewees refer to this as going beyond integration. However, the interviewees acknowledge that
not all municipal departments have made this shift and that the municipality is still looking for a
suitable and affordable approach. According to the vice-mayor on LEIP, the economic
participation discourse is not assimilationist in nature. Rotterdammers are asked to integrate into
the economy, but they are free to choose how they do so (e.g. paid or voluntarily). Nevertheless,
an Area Manager discusses how assimilationism still often underlies urban policy today as
economic and cultural integration are very much intertwined. She illustrates this with an example
of work tours that are organised in Rotterdam-South under the Mee(r) Doen policy for
unemployed young people who often belong to an ethnic minority group to meet potential
employers in the harbour:
The harbour employers say: of course, we would like to employ people from this area, there is
plenty of work. But when it comes down to it, the education levels and social skills of the
people that seemed eligible for the jobs appear insufficient. Thus, economic and social
dimensions correlate. Somehow, it is the case that people in this area have to adjust to the
26

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

employers will. And it stands or falls on trivial things: giving a weak hand. In Turkish and
Moroccan culture this is a sign of respect. Yet, a harbour employer wants a strong hand,
strong, steady. When the applicant does not look you in the eye during an interview it is a
sign of respect, but they [employers] find him too hesitant. This type of things. So, then it goes
wrong [Area Manager, 7 November 2013].
The vice-mayor on LEIP agrees that discrimination at work needs to be addressed. However,
both she and the vice-mayor on HPPS argue that it is fair that for some jobs (on the higher end
of the labour market) employees are asked to adjust to existing work cultures.
From government to governance in the development of policy
In the interviews policy actors were asked about key actors regarding policy development and
implementation. Like in the policy documents, government officials argue that the municipality
no longer works as a government actor but as one of the managerial actors in a governance15
model. According to all governmental policy actors, the municipality collaborates with various
non-governmental parties when developing an approach on the governance of diversity. A
Programme Manager says:
we are one of the players and we are not the one with the final say. This [] has to do with
the fact that civil society can survive without government. [] Have you heard of the essay
The Trees and the Rhizome? The Rhizome is the network society and the tree is the
government that stands strong but really is no longer that strong at all. As a government, we
are looking at how we can participate and thus also at how we can handle diversity [1
November 2013].
3.2 Non-governmental views on diversity policy
The views of non-governmental policy actors show similarities with those of governmental policy actors,
although there are some differences as well. Non-governmental policy actors too argue that urban policy
in Rotterdam pays relatively little attention to diversity. They also argue that diversity is not mentioned often
in urban policy nor talked about often by policy actors, that relatively few policy makers work on the
matter (mostly in the Social Affairs Department), and that the budgets for diversity are relatively small.
For instance, according to a Policy Advisor at the Rotterdam Knowledge Centre on Diversity (RKCD)
few people are working on the theme of diversity, while actually, it
should be carried out by many services. [] The theme diversity does not belong to one vice-mayor.
There should be a vice-mayor [on it], but simultaneously, the ministers, the executive board, everyone
should carry it out [7 November 2013].
Non-governmental policy actors argue that the two policies in which diversity is most prominently
addressed on citizenship and integration have experienced relatively high budget cuts compared to
other policy themes. Rather than framing this as an opportunity, like the vice-mayor on LEIP does, a
Policy Advisor at the Knowledge Centre for Anti-Discrimination (KCAD) explains that the cuts have
caused a loss of activities on matters of diversity. In addition, they have caused many NGOs to disappear,
causing knowledge loss.
Similarly to what emerged from the interviews with governmental policy actors, non-governmental policy
actors argue that diversity is often framed and understood as a matter of ethnic diversity. Like
15 In this study governance is defined as the fragmentation of political power through public-private partnerships in which the
public government acts as a facilitator and manager of private interests of both commercial and voluntary parties through
networks.

27

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

governmental policy actors, in the interviews many interpret diversity as a matter of ethnicity as well. For
instance, when asked about diversity in Rotterdam, a Programme Manager explains that the issue of
diverse nationalities, for example at work, has recently been discussed much. Again, housing policy is
identified as an exception as here diversity is said to address incomes and lifestyles.
More often than governmental policy actors, non-governmental actors argue that diversity is understood
as a problem that the city needs to cope with. A Research Director for instance says:
I hope that we can reach a stage in which it [diversity] can be seen as a quality. However, in recent
years it was absolutely not [understood as] a quality. Rotterdam not necessarily the people, I think
it is not that much an issue there has done its very best to get on all the black lists. It was one big
negative city marketing, what they have done in recent years: we are the poorest city, the city with the
most problems, the city with the highest number of migrant groups, the greatest diversity and ethnic
backgrounds and that was presented as a problem that needed to be solved [31 October 2013].
Like the interviewed municipal Policy Advisors on housing, a Programme Manager at a Housing
Association sees the lifestyle approach in housing policy as a way to avoid social tensions: there can be a
potential source of discomfort with different cultures because you do not understand one another, because you have different day
and night rhythms, or because you are annoyed by [loud] music, those kinds of things [28 October 2013].
Like governmental interviewees, when explaining the lack of attention for diversity, the interpretation in
terms of ethnicity and the negative connotations of the term in present policy discourses, most nongovernmental interviewees refer to the way in which Liveable Rotterdam addressed diversity during their
period of governance. A Policy Advisor at the RKCD talks about so-called Islam debates that took place
under Liveable Rotterdam rule and that generated stereotypes and feelings of them and us between
Muslims and non-Muslims. Like most municipal interviewees, but different from the two interviewed
vice-mayors, most non-governmental interviewees describe the phenomenon as a taboo that needs to be
addressed. For instance, a former vice-mayor at the municipality of Rotterdam and founder of the
Colourful City programme in 1998 argues that the current coalition has never dared to reintroduce
pluralist discourses for fear of losing (populist) votes.
Several non-governmental interviewees discuss how - when diversity is seen as a quality in policy governmental as well as non-governmental policy makers mainly portray it as an economic benefit. The
director of the Nation Programme Rotterdam-South (NPRS) explains that previously policy makers
focussed more on creating social cohesion while at present economic performance is the main goal, also in
his programme. This is in line with findings from the documentary analysis. Social cohesion is rarely
referred to and if it is, it is used as a token for generating economic benefits. A Policy Advisor of the
RKCD argues that in the super-diverse city of Rotterdam it is important that the municipality pays
attention to the social qualities of diversity besides the economic ones, for instance by encouraging more
positive and tolerant understandings of differences. Moreover, when more people can work with diversity
among the population, this will benefit the economy as well, he argues. Also, a researcher and founder of
an urban revitalisation programme in Rotterdam-South and the Director of the Knowledge Centre for
Emancipation (KCE) emphasise the importance of training people to be able to work and live together
interculturally, thus sensitive to complex cultural diversities. These views are in contrast with those of
several governmental actors, including the vice-mayors, who no longer find this a duty of the municipality.
Similar to some governmental interviewees, non-governmental actors talk about the tension between a
universal and a more focused policy approach. They argue that some municipal departments practice
mainstream policy, while others target specific groups and that there often seem to be exceptions to the
rule. For example, the Director of KCE explains that on the one hand the national government demands
local organisations to use a mainstream approach and on the other, they often ask her organisation to
organise a social programme on a specific theme (e.g. hidden women, honour-related violence, domestic
violence, forced marriage and sexuality) in specific ethnic communities. In addition, non-governmental
policy actors tell how organisations can get around the demand for mainstream policy (implementation)
by
28

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

adding a sentence that says that an activity should be accessible to all [when applying for municipal
subsidies]. Of course everyone is welcome. Yet, at the same time when a certain group of people comes
together it excludes other people [Director of Research, 31 October 2013].
Like several municipal interviewees, non-governmental interviewees are worried about the prioritising of
mainstream policy and argue that policy should pay more attention to disadvantaged groups. According to
a policy advisor at RKCD, mainstream policy wrongly ignores the diversity of the population. A policy
advisor at KCAD questions: there is mainstream policy, but does it manage to reach everyone [30 October 2013]?
Furthermore, a policy advisor at RKCD asks: against the standards of what particular groups in society
was a mainstream policy developed?
According to the interviewed Director and Policy Advisors at the Knowledge Centres, the so-called
Dutch culture is still a benchmark for mainstream policy in most policy fields. The Director of the KCE
says:
In general it [the way in which the municipality addresses diversity] is not so bad. But they [the
municipality] could be much more inviting and should also integrate the native population. The process
cannot be one-way. That is emphasised too much, that newcomers should integrate in the city. But
today, many newcomers were born here. They have the same rights to citizenship as a native Dutch
person [20 October 2013].
Also, a Programme Manager at a housing association gives an example of this as he explains that in line
with municipal and national discourses on integration, leaflets are only provided in Dutch despite of the
fact that a significant part of their clients do not understand the Dutch language well. Indeed, while several
governmental actors speak of a shift away from a cultural assimilation discourse in urban policy, the
majority of non-governmental actors argue that there is still an assimilationist notion in policy (practice):
in my view present policy is focused on we must make sure that foreign people integrate, while I
think integration should come from various sides. But essentially, we should think of how citizens can
be involved in the city independently of their ethnic background [Policy Advisor RKCD, 7
November 2013].
Finally, governmental policy actors argue that the municipality collaborates with multiple nongovernmental and business actors when developing and implementing policies addressing diversity. Yet,
this is not how the majority of non-governmental actors experience the role of the municipality.
According to the Director of the NPRS the municipality is very influential for policy development and
implementation in Rotterdam, being one of the main reasons the National Programme was installed. The
knowledge centres are funded through the Citizenship Policy. However, also in the experience of the
Director and Policy Advisors at the Knowledge Centres neither they nor other non-governmental parties
were included in the policy development process. For example, a Policy Advisor at the KCAD says:
It feels very much imposed. This is our policy and this is how we will apply it. If you do not agree, no
subsidy. I think it is being imposed. But afterwards [if you accept the requirements] you are able to
participate. See, it should have been different at the formation of the policy, involve the people [30
October 2013].
Likewise, a Policy Advisor at the RKCD says that NGOs used to collaborate with civil servants when
developing policy. In recent years, this does not happen anymore, he says. One reason for this is that
many NGOs have disappeared due to budget cuts. The municipality has stopped to fund special interest
groups due to budget cuts and the focus on mainstream policy. Consequently, he argues that organised
civil society is not that strong anymore. Another reason could be that the municipality is undergoing
internal changes, he argues:

29

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

With the budget cuts everyone is searching, there is unrest: will I have a job? Decentralisations,
mergers, et cetera. The Department of Social Affairs is new, and Health Care Services are [now] also
part of the department [7 November 2013].

4. Conclusions
This report has shown that the municipality is the central actor in the development and implementation of
policies addressing urban diversity in Rotterdam. Municipal responsibilities on this topic are growing due
to decentralisation processes even though their budgets are declining. The municipality of Rotterdam is
currently undergoing major changes in its organisation, governance approach, and budgets. Interviews
with key policy actors have indicated that at present urban policy regarding diversity is largely developed
and directed by the vice-mayors and associated municipal departments. Multiple other parties can
participate during policy implementation. Various governmental and non-governmental parties collaborate
in policy implementation at a local level. Yet, due to cuts in the subsidies of many NGOs in recent years,
civil society at the city level is not as powerful as it was.
The analysis has however shown that present policy in Rotterdam pays little attention to diversity. Rotterdam
currently does not have an articulated diversity policy. Two policies address diversity explicitly: a
citizenship and an integration policy. Other examined policies (e.g. on housing, education, safety, work
and income and Rotterdam-South and the city plan) touch upon the topic but do not address it directly.
Interviewees mention that diversity is not talked about often within the municipality and within social
services. In addition, they argue that the personnel of the municipality and other organisations in
Rotterdam are still not representative in terms of ethnicity and gender for the population of the city.
Finally, the interviewed policy actors argue that the municipal budget for the governance of diversity is
relatively low. Most policy actors indicate that only the budgets of citizenship and integration policies can
be regarded as budgets for governing diversity. Furthermore, these budgets have decreased significantly in
recent years. The Integration Policy has finished as of 2014.
The analysis in this report has shown that - with the exception of housing policy diversity in Rotterdam
is mostly understood as a matter of ethnicity. Moreover, diversity in policy is more often understood as a
problem, rather than an asset or opportunity. Another related finding from interviews is that the
municipality strives to practice mainstream policy. Several interviewees have expressed their concerns about
this approach, despite the fact that not all departments follow this trend and that in practice municipal and
non-municipal parties work around this requirement. Although policy actors value that mainstream policy
does not differentiate and thus also does not stigmatise - between groups, they are concerned that it will
not reach everyone. Many actors are concerned about the impact of mainstream policy on the most
vulnerable groups.
Policies in Rotterdam hold an underlying assimilationalist discourse: the policies are aimed at all
Rotterdammers but an extra effort is asked from newcomers to the city and those belonging to what the
municipality calls the slow city to catch up with the mainstream which policy portrays as the existing
residents in the fast city. Indeed, in the analysis we found that a better economic performance of Rotterdam is
currently the main drive behind urban policy. When diversity is discussed as an asset it is seen as an
economic quality. This is communicated clearly in the present coalitions City Plan, and comes back in all
the examined policy documents. Also, interviewed policy actors confirm this, with the exception of some
governmental policy actors.
The examined policies call for a redistribution of resources to form a safety net for the poorest. However, the
redistribution only seems modest, because most policies aim to invest in all Rotterdammers, also
successful ones, to make the city more attractive e.g. for higher-income groups. Improving social mobility
of residents is often used as a tool to generate such economic success. Some policies recognise different
kinds of diversity. For instance, the area-based approach in some policies takes diversity of places into
account when implementing policy. Yet, policy pays little attention to social cohesion, nor to facilitating
encounters between diverse groups. The lifestyle approach in housing policy could serve as an example of
30

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

this. It prevents potential negative experiences between people with different residential preferences and
behaviours by (re-)developing neighbourhoods for a specific lifestyle rather than to mix lifestyles and to
promote positive interactions between them, although relevant governmental policy actors argue that
within lifestyle there are other diversities (e.g. in income and ethnicity). Several policy actors have
expressed their disappointment with the absence of a discussion on how to deal with diversity socially and
speak of a taboo. As one of the interviewees has argued, in a super-diverse city such as Rotterdam it is
essential to pay more attention to positive experiences of differences and connections between different
groups in policy.
Policy actors find explanations for these findings in the recent socio-political history of Rotterdam. While
pluralist discourses in national policy made space for integrationist views at the beginning of the 1990s,
pluralist policy discourses in Rotterdam lasted until 2002 when the Multi-coloured City Policy came to an end.
After several decades of Labour party rule, the populist party Liveable Rotterdam became the biggest
political party. Under their rule, Rotterdam policy skipped the national integrationist discourse of the
1990s, and adopted an assimilationist policy approach that was consistent with but slightly harsher than
national policy discourses then. Liveable Rotterdam emphasised the negative experiences of ethnic
diversity and Muslims in urban policy (implementation), hereby representing existing concerns among the
citys population about these matters then. When the Labour party came back to power in 2006, they
sought to promote a more inclusive, and positive understanding of diversity. However, from the Liveable
Rotterdam term of governance they learnt not to ignore the negative experiences of ethnic diversity
among the population. The current coalition is in search of new ways to cope with experiences of urban
diversity. According to two interviewed Vice-Mayors, it is a conscious choice of the ruling coalition not to
focus explicitly on diversity in policy. Nevertheless, most policy actors believe that they have not dared to
(re-)introduce pluralist discourses in fear of losing (populist) votes. In line with national policy discourses
they currently mostly focus on socio-economic rather than socio-cultural topics.
In March 2014, there will be municipal elections. That year, city districts will also merge into area
committees (see chapter 2.1). As of 2015, national governmental subsidies for citizenship and integration
will end. It is unclear how these governmental changes will influence policy discourses on diversity in
Rotterdam.

31

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

References
Blok Committee (2004), Bruggen bouwen: Eindrapport van de Tijdelijke Parlementaire
Onderzoekscommissie Integratiebeleid. [Bridging: Final report of the Temporary Parliamentary Research
Committee Integration Policy]. The Hague: SDU.
Brug, W. van der, M. Fennema, S. van Heerden, and S.L. de Lange (2009), Hoe heeft het integratiedebat
zich in Nederland ontwikkeld? [How has the Integration Debate evolved in the Netherlands?].
Migrantenstudies, 25 (3), pp. 198-220.
Bruquetas-Callejo, M.D.M., B. Garces Mascarenas, R. Penninx and P. Scholten (2011), Policymaking
related to immigration and integration. The Dutch Case. Country Report on the Netherlands. In: G.
Zicone, R. Penninx and M. Borkert (eds.), Migration Policymaking in Europe. The Dynamics of Actors and
Contexts in Past and Present, pp. 129-163. Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam.
City of Rotterdam Regional Steering Committee (2009), The City of Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SelfEvaluation Report, OECD Reviews of Higher Education in Regional and City
Development, IMHE. Accessed at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/skills-beyond-school/44148367.
pdf, 19 January 2014.
Eerste Kamer (n.d.) Afschaffing bevoegdheid gemeentebesturen om deelgemeenten in te stellen [Abolishment ability
municipal
governments
to
install
districts].
Accessed
at:
http://www.eerstekamer.nl/
wetsvoorstel/33017_afschaffing_bevoegdheid, 15 September 2013.
Eijk, G. van (2013a), Rotterdamwet ijzersterk voorbeeld van principle-free politics [Rotterdam Act very
strong example of principle-free politics], Vers Beton, 9 June 2013. Accessed at: http://
versbeton.nl/2013/05/rotterdamwet-ijzersterk-voorbeeld-van-principle-free-politics/, 19 January 2014.
Eijk, G. van (2013b), Rotterdamwet: gedragseis voor bewoners? [Rotterdam Act: conduct requirement
for
residents?],
Sociale
Vraagstukken.
Accessed
at:
http://www.
socialevraagstukken.nl/site/2013/08/30/rotterdamwet-gedragseis-voor-bewoners/, 19 January 2014.
Entzinger, H. (1975), Nederland immigratieland? [The Netherlands, country of immigration?]. Beleid en
Maatschappij, 2 (12), pp. 326-336.
Four Big Cities (1994) , Memorandum van de vier grote steden aan de kabinetsformateur [Memorandum for the four big
cities to the formateur]. Accessed at: http://www.bds.rotterdam.nl/Bestuurlijke_Informatie:7/
Raadsinformatie/Vorige_raadsperioden/Raadsperiode_1994_1998/Commissie_1994_1998/HEZ/1994/
Kwartaal_2/Memorandum_van_de_vier_grote_steden_aan_de_kabinetsinformateur_Deltaplan_voor_de
_grote_steden, 19 January 2014.
Heelsum, A. van (2004a), Migrantenorganisaties in Nederland. Deel 1: Aantal en soort organisaties en
ontwikkelingen [Migrant organisations in the Netherlands. Part 1: Numbers and types of organisations
and developments]. Utrecht: FORUM.
Heelsum, A. van (2004b), Migrantenorganisaties in Nederland. Deel 2: Het functioneren van de
organisaties [Migrant organisations in the Netherlands. Part 2: The functioning of the organisations].
Utrecht: FORUM.
Kempen, R. van (2000), The Big Cities Policy in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale
Geografie, 91 (2), pp. 197-203.
Kempen, R. van and F.M. Pinkster (2003), Vraagtekens bij Leefstijlen [Questioning Lifestyles]. Nul20,
7.Accessed at: http://www.nul20.nl/dossiers/vraagtekens-bij-leefstijlen, 19 January 2014.

32

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Korthals Altes, W.K. (2002), Local Government and the Decentralisation of Urban Regeneration Policies
in the Netherlands. Urban Studies, 39 (8), pp. 1439-1452.
Ministry of Internal Affairs (1994), Contourennota integratiebeleid etnische minderheden. [Contouren
Memorandum Integration Policy Ethnic Minorities]. The Hague: Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Ministry of Internal Affairs (1983), Minderhedennota. [Minorities Memorandum]. The Hague:
Staatsuitgeverij. TK 1982-83, 16102, no. 21.
Ministry of Justice (2003), Integratiebeleid Nieuwe Stijl [Integration policy New Style]. The Hague:
Ministry of Justice. TK 2003-2004, 29203, no. 1.
National Government of the Netherlands (2013) Rijksbegroting 2014 [National Government Budget 2014].
Accessed
at:
http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/miljoenennota-en-rijksbegroting/
prinsjesdagstukken, 19 January 2014.
National Government of the Netherlands (n.d.), Wie vormen de Overheid? [Who is the government composed of?].
Accessed at: http://www.overheid.nl/zowerktdeoverheid/wievormendeoverheid, 15 September 2013.
National Government of the Netherlands (2011) Zuid Werkt! Nationaal Kwaliteitsprogramma Zuid [Zuid works!
National Quality Program South]. Accessed at: http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten-enpublicaties/convenanten/2011/09/19/zuid-werkt-nationaal-programma-kwaliteitsprong-zuid/m-zuidwerkt-nationaal-programma-kwaliteitsprong-zuid.pdf, 10 December 2012.
Nicolaas, H. and A. Sprangers (2006), Internationale migratie. Nederland in een Europese context.
[International Migration. The Netherlands in an International Perspective]. In: F. van Tubergen and I.
Maas (eds.), Allochtonen in Nederland in internationaal perspectief [Foreign people in the Netherlands in International
Perspective], pp. 13-35. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Ouwehand, A.L. (2006), Rotterdamse inkomenseis: spierballenvertoon of maatwerk? [Rotterdam income
requirement: flexing of muscles or a tailored fit?]. Aedes Magazine, 8, pp. 34-35.
Ouwehand, A.L. and W. Doff (2013), Rotterdam zet symboolpolitiek gewoon door [Rotterdam just
continues symbolic politics]. Tijdschrift voor de Volkshuisvesting, 5, pp. 6-12.
Programmabureau Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid (2013), Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid
voortgang 2012-2013 [National Programme Rotterdam Zuid progress 2012-2013]. Rotterdam:
Programmabureau Nationaal Programma Rotterdam Zuid.
Scheffer, P. (2000), Het multiculturele drama [The Multicultural Drama]. NRC Handelsblad, 29 January.
Schinkel, W. (2008), The Moralization of Citizenship in Dutch Integration Discourse. Amsterdam Law
Forum, 1 (1), pp. 1526.
Scholten, P. (2007), Constructing Immigrant Policies. Research-policy relations and immigrant integration
policy-making in the Netherlands (1970-2004). PhD Thesis, University of Twente, Printpartners Ipskamp:
Enschede.
Scholten, P. (2011), Constructing Dutch Immigrant Policy. Research-policy relations and immigrant
integration policy-making in the Netherlands. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 13 (1),
pp. 75-92.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (1979), Ethnic Minorities. The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (1989), Immigrant Policy. The Hague: SDU.
33

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

SmartAgent Company (2008), Woonbeleving in de regio Rotterdam. Leusden: SmartAgent Company.

Ta an-Kok T. (2010), Entrepreneurial governance: challenges of large-scale property-led urban
regeneration projects. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101 (2), pp. 126-149.
URBED and M. Van Hoek (2007), Regeneration in European Cities: Making Connections. Case study of
Kop
van
Zuid,
Rotterdam.
Accessed
at:
http://media.urbed.coop.ccc.cdn.faelix.net/
sites/default/files/Case%20Study%20for%20Kop%20Van%20Zuid,%20Rotterdam.pdf, 15 September
2013.
Vasta, E. (2007), From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to
assimilationism in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30 (5), pp. 713-740.

34

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Appendix I. List of policy actors interviewed

Number Function
Organisation
1
Vice-Mayor Housing, Spatial planning, Property,
and Urban Economy (including NPRS)
Municipality of Rotterdam
2
Political Advisor
Municipality of Rotterdam
3
Municipality of Rotterdam,
Urban
Development
Senior Policy Advisor
Department
4
Municipality of Rotterdam,
Urban
Development
Senior Policy Advisor
Department
5
Vice-Mayor Labour market, Higher Education,
Innovation and Participation
Municipality of Rotterdam
6
Municipality of Rotterdam,
Senior Policy Advisor
Social Affairs Department
7
Municipality of Rotterdam,
Programme Manager
Social Affairs Department
8
Municipality of Rotterdam,
Senior Strategic Advisor
Executive Board
9
Municipality of Rotterdam, a
Area Manager
City District
10
Municipality of Rotterdam, a
Area Director
City District
11
Director Rotterdam Skillcity
(RVS)/ Philosopher Erasmus
Former Vice-Mayor Diversity Policy Rotterdam
University Rotterdam
12
Rotterdam Knowledge Centre
Senior Policy Advisor
on Diversity
13
Rotterdam Knowledge Centre
Senior Policy Advisor
on Diversity
14
Knowledge
Centre
on
Director
Emancipation / Dona Daria
15
Knowledge Centre on AntiSenior Policy Advisor
discrimination / Radar
16
Programme Manager
Housing corporation Woonstad
17
National Programme RotterdamDirector
South
18
Founder Pact op Zuid / Researcher
Pact op Zuid / Skillcity (RVS)
19
Director of Research
Stichting de Verre Bergen
20
Programme Manager
Stichting de Verre Bergen

35

DIVERCITIES 319970

4 August 2014

Appendix II. List of policy documents analysed

Rotterdam City Policy
Coalition Work Programme Rotterdam 2010-2014. Working on Talent and Entrepreneurship
[College Werkprogramma Rotterdam 2010-2014. Werken aan Talent en Ondernemen]
Implementation Strategy Rotterdam [Uitvoeringsstrategie Rotterdam]
Urban Vision 2030 [Stadsvisie 2030]
Citizenship and Integration Policy
Citizenship Policy. Participation: Selecting Talent. Definition of Citizenship Policy for the years
2012 to 2015 [Burgerschapsbeleid: Kiezen voor Talent. Invulling van het burgerschapsbeleid
voor de jaren 2012 tot 2015]
Doing More: Rotterdammers in Action. Integration Strategy [Mee(R) Doen: Rotterdammers in
Actie. Integratieaanpak]
Implementation Programme Colourful City 1998-2002 [Uitvoeringsprogramma Veelkleurige Stad
1998-2002]
Housing Policy
Law on Exceptional Measures Metropolitan Problems [Wet Bijzondere Maatregelen
Grootstedelijke Problematiek]
Living in Rotterdam. Updated Housing Vision 2007-2010 [Wonen in Rotterdam. Geactualiseerde
Woonvisie 2007-2010]
Implementation Programme Housing Vision 2010-2014 [Uitvoeringsstrategie Woonvisie 20102014]
Urban Policy for Rotterdam South
South Works! National Programme Quality Leap South [Zuid Werkt! Nationaal Programma
Kwaliteitssprong Zuid]
National Programme Rotterdam South. Implementation Plan 2012-2014 [Nationaal Programma
Rotterdam Zuid. Uitvoeringsplan 2012-2014]
Work and Income Policy
Rotterdam Works! Policy Framework Work and Re-integration 2011-2014 [Rotterdam Werkt!
Beleidskader Werk en Re-integratie 2011-2014]
Safety Policy
Programme Safety 2014-2018. #Safe 010 [Programma Veiligheid 2014-2018. #Veilig 010]
Action Programme Antilleans. Huntu Nos Por Logra. Together we can achieve it. Antilleans
Policy in Rotterdam [Actieprogramma Antillianen. Huntu Nos Por Logra. Samen kunnen we het
bereiken. Antillianenbeleid in Rotterdam].
Educational Policy
Better Performance Programme. Rotterdam Educational Policy 2011-2014 part 1 [Programma
Beter Presteren. Rotterdams Onderwijsbeleid 2011-2014 deel 1]
Attack on Drop-outs Programme. Rotterdam Educational Policy 2011-2014 part 2 [Programma
Aanval op Uitval. Rotterdams Onderwijsbeleid 2011-2014 deel 2]
Language Attack 2011-2014 [Taaloffensief 2011-2014]

36